Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

just updated that issue as there were some rumors that we are unstuck,
just not yet documented as such.

fingers crossed.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:40 AM Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the October report and see that we need to close the loop on 
> this thread.
>
> > On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
> >> ...basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
> >> concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue...
> >
> > As Craig wrote earlier here
> >
> >> ..."all that needs to be done" is to establish that all of the copyright 
> >> owners
> >> sign either a Software Grant or an ICLA...
> >
> > So ideally all contributors sign a common Software Grant, or in some
> > documented way delegate that to someone who is authorized to represent
> > "the OpenZipkin community" and sign the software grant.
> >
> > As mentioned at INFRA-16989, the alternative is for all contributors
> > to sign an Apache iCLA, IIUC Craig correctly in this case a Software
> > Grant is not needed.
> >
> > From what you say it looks like there's no code from Twitter left in
> > the codebase that is to be imported, if that's the case (and again
> > provided we have documented declarations that confirm that) my opinion
> > is that you don't need to involve Twitter.
>
> I agree. In fact in looking at the Zipkin repository and the contributing.md 
> referenced:
>
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md 
> 
>
> It looks to me that the code is already covered. As such I think that all 
> that is needed to get the migration unstuck is a comment from 
> secret...@apache.org on INFRA-16989
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Dave Fisher]

Hi,

I was looking at the October report and see that we need to close the loop on 
this thread.

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
>> ...basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
>> concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue...
> 
> As Craig wrote earlier here
> 
>> ..."all that needs to be done" is to establish that all of the copyright 
>> owners
>> sign either a Software Grant or an ICLA...
> 
> So ideally all contributors sign a common Software Grant, or in some
> documented way delegate that to someone who is authorized to represent
> "the OpenZipkin community" and sign the software grant.
> 
> As mentioned at INFRA-16989, the alternative is for all contributors
> to sign an Apache iCLA, IIUC Craig correctly in this case a Software
> Grant is not needed.
> 
> From what you say it looks like there's no code from Twitter left in
> the codebase that is to be imported, if that's the case (and again
> provided we have documented declarations that confirm that) my opinion
> is that you don't need to involve Twitter.

I agree. In fact in looking at the Zipkin repository and the contributing.md 
referenced:

https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md 


It looks to me that the code is already covered. As such I think that all that 
is needed to get the migration unstuck is a comment from secret...@apache.org 
on INFRA-16989

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Bertrand
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

Thanks tons. I am now watching INFRA-16989 and will follow-up there.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:59 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
> > ...basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
> > concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue...
>
> As Craig wrote earlier here
>
> > ..."all that needs to be done" is to establish that all of the copyright 
> > owners
> > sign either a Software Grant or an ICLA...
>
> So ideally all contributors sign a common Software Grant, or in some
> documented way delegate that to someone who is authorized to represent
> "the OpenZipkin community" and sign the software grant.
>
> As mentioned at INFRA-16989, the alternative is for all contributors
> to sign an Apache iCLA, IIUC Craig correctly in this case a Software
> Grant is not needed.
>
> From what you say it looks like there's no code from Twitter left in
> the codebase that is to be imported, if that's the case (and again
> provided we have documented declarations that confirm that) my opinion
> is that you don't need to involve Twitter.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
> ...basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
> concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue...

As Craig wrote earlier here

> ..."all that needs to be done" is to establish that all of the copyright 
> owners
> sign either a Software Grant or an ICLA...

So ideally all contributors sign a common Software Grant, or in some
documented way delegate that to someone who is authorized to represent
"the OpenZipkin community" and sign the software grant.

As mentioned at INFRA-16989, the alternative is for all contributors
to sign an Apache iCLA, IIUC Craig correctly in this case a Software
Grant is not needed.

>From what you say it looks like there's no code from Twitter left in
the codebase that is to be imported, if that's the case (and again
provided we have documented declarations that confirm that) my opinion
is that you don't need to involve Twitter.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

one note in our efforts to change this to action: the PPMC wrote or
significantly changed the vast majority of the code in the main repo. The
heroes that wrote the rest largely came from Twitter (in Italy work) plus
close and easy to find friends of Zipkin who volunteered effort. A long
tail of smaller works came from quite a few folks all with the noted
CONTRIBUTORS guidance.

Does this framing help at all with next steps?

Best,
-A

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, 17:28 Adrian Cole,  wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> Assuming the primary provenance concern is Twitter, I'm looping in
> Ravi who is happy to help where he can, subject to personal
> availability. Just keep in mind that the repository mentioned is in
> almost 100% Java and no Java code was written by Twitter employees.
>
> This was done after Twitter donated the project to the OpenZipkin
> community. I wrote a great deal of it, but there are quite a lot of
> contributors who wrote significant parts of the code, and none of them
> are my colleagues nor twitter employees. All code written since
> OpenZipkin came with the clause mentioned in the earlier
> CONTRIBUTING.md that contributions would be licensed for distribution
> in ASL. Changing the headers from "The OpenZipkin Authors" to "The
> Apache Authors" or whatever we have to do is unlikely to cause a stir.
>
> So, basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
> concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue.
>
> Best,
> -A
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:09 AM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Without going into history let's discuss the current guidance:
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#provenance
> >
> > If you want to cite historical references that conflict with this, we
> can have that discussion.
> >
> > Establishing provenance is one of the primary tasks of a project in
> incubation. In order to change the headers on code, the owners of the IP
> for that code need to agree. SGA or ICLA is documentation of that agreement.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 11:38 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I may be mis-remembering, but I thought that an SGA wasn't required
> for ALv2 code.  OpenZipkin appears to be ALv2.  The licenses in the SGA are
> pretty much the same as in ALv2.
> > > I thought that for ALv2 code, we mostly cared that the community
> documented that it was willing to make the move from wherever the code is
> now to the ASF, and it wasn't super important to get approval from folks
> with minor contributions as long as we were confident their contributions
> were under ALv2.
> > >
> > > Once the community has approved the move to the ASF, any copyright
> holder or an agent can replace the headers with the ASF header.
> > >
> > > Of course, I could be wrong...
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 9/18/18, 7:00 PM, "Adrian Cole"  adrian.f.c...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >Hi, John
> > >
> > >Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
> > >would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
> > >through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a
> decision
> > >made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
> > >find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >-A
> > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
> > >>
> > >> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an
> SGA.  If
> > >> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
> > >> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or
> Apache
> > >> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to
> replace the
> > >> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating
> the
> > >> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
> > >>
> > >> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should
> ensure
> > >> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation
> process.
> > >> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling
> is
> > >> ready to graduate.
> > >>
> > >> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
> > >> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match
> the
> > >> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP
> history
> > >> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential
> problems
> > >> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe
> if we
> > >> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that
> should
> > >> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the
> contribution
> > >> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> [1]:
> 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

Hi, all.

Assuming the primary provenance concern is Twitter, I'm looping in
Ravi who is happy to help where he can, subject to personal
availability. Just keep in mind that the repository mentioned is in
almost 100% Java and no Java code was written by Twitter employees.

This was done after Twitter donated the project to the OpenZipkin
community. I wrote a great deal of it, but there are quite a lot of
contributors who wrote significant parts of the code, and none of them
are my colleagues nor twitter employees. All code written since
OpenZipkin came with the clause mentioned in the earlier
CONTRIBUTING.md that contributions would be licensed for distribution
in ASL. Changing the headers from "The OpenZipkin Authors" to "The
Apache Authors" or whatever we have to do is unlikely to cause a stir.

So, basically I'm sure many of us would like to know where the
concerns are and how to address concretely what is of issue.

Best,
-A
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:09 AM Craig Russell  wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Without going into history let's discuss the current guidance: 
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#provenance
>
> If you want to cite historical references that conflict with this, we can 
> have that discussion.
>
> Establishing provenance is one of the primary tasks of a project in 
> incubation. In order to change the headers on code, the owners of the IP for 
> that code need to agree. SGA or ICLA is documentation of that agreement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 11:38 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >
> > I may be mis-remembering, but I thought that an SGA wasn't required for 
> > ALv2 code.  OpenZipkin appears to be ALv2.  The licenses in the SGA are 
> > pretty much the same as in ALv2.
> > I thought that for ALv2 code, we mostly cared that the community documented 
> > that it was willing to make the move from wherever the code is now to the 
> > ASF, and it wasn't super important to get approval from folks with minor 
> > contributions as long as we were confident their contributions were under 
> > ALv2.
> >
> > Once the community has approved the move to the ASF, any copyright holder 
> > or an agent can replace the headers with the ASF header.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong...
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 9/18/18, 7:00 PM, "Adrian Cole"  > > wrote:
> >
> >Hi, John
> >
> >Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
> >would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
> >through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
> >made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
> >find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> >
> >Best,
> >-A
> >On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
> >>
> >> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
> >> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
> >> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
> >> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
> >> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
> >> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
> >>
> >> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
> >> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
> >> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
> >> ready to graduate.
> >>
> >> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
> >> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
> >> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
> >> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
> >> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
> >> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
> >> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
> >> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> [1]: 
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenzipkin%2Fzipkin%2Fgraphs%2Fcontributorsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=uM8FYSSrTEoprQjlxBn7CaGMUUKN1q5kFIKZbwJK5OI%3Dreserved=0
> >>  
> >> 
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  >> > wrote:
> >>
> 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Craig Russell]

Hi Alex,

Without going into history let's discuss the current guidance: 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#provenance

If you want to cite historical references that conflict with this, we can have 
that discussion.

Establishing provenance is one of the primary tasks of a project in incubation. 
In order to change the headers on code, the owners of the IP for that code need 
to agree. SGA or ICLA is documentation of that agreement.

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 11:38 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> I may be mis-remembering, but I thought that an SGA wasn't required for ALv2 
> code.  OpenZipkin appears to be ALv2.  The licenses in the SGA are pretty 
> much the same as in ALv2.
> I thought that for ALv2 code, we mostly cared that the community documented 
> that it was willing to make the move from wherever the code is now to the 
> ASF, and it wasn't super important to get approval from folks with minor 
> contributions as long as we were confident their contributions were under 
> ALv2.
> 
> Once the community has approved the move to the ASF, any copyright holder or 
> an agent can replace the headers with the ASF header.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
> 
> On 9/18/18, 7:00 PM, "Adrian Cole"  > wrote:
> 
>Hi, John
> 
>Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
>would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
>through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
>made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
>find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> 
>Best,
>-A
>On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
>> 
>> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
>> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
>> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
>> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
>> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
>> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
>> 
>> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
>> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
>> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
>> ready to graduate.
>> 
>> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
>> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
>> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
>> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
>> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
>> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
>> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
>> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> [1]: 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenzipkin%2Fzipkin%2Fgraphs%2Fcontributorsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=uM8FYSSrTEoprQjlxBn7CaGMUUKN1q5kFIKZbwJK5OI%3Dreserved=0
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole > > wrote:
>> 
>>> There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
>>> openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
>>> the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsg%2Fzipkin-user%2FfbOgEZpuQx4%2FbWH1-__EmCoJdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=zCuH4RUT5mF8O8%2FuE1Q2LF7ug6XxieKzTY%2FixIPnupo%3Dreserved=0
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
>>> indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Alex Harui]

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought that an SGA wasn't required for ALv2 
code.  OpenZipkin appears to be ALv2.  The licenses in the SGA are pretty much 
the same as in ALv2.
I thought that for ALv2 code, we mostly cared that the community documented 
that it was willing to make the move from wherever the code is now to the ASF, 
and it wasn't super important to get approval from folks with minor 
contributions as long as we were confident their contributions were under ALv2.

Once the community has approved the move to the ASF, any copyright holder or an 
agent can replace the headers with the ASF header.

Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex

On 9/18/18, 7:00 PM, "Adrian Cole"  wrote:

Hi, John

Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.

Best,
-A
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  wrote:
>
> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
>
> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  
If
> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace 
the
> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
>
> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
> ready to graduate.
>
> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> John
>
> [1]: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenzipkin%2Fzipkin%2Fgraphs%2Fcontributorsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=uM8FYSSrTEoprQjlxBn7CaGMUUKN1q5kFIKZbwJK5OI%3Dreserved=0
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  
wrote:
>
> > There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
> > openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
> > the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
> > 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsg%2Fzipkin-user%2FfbOgEZpuQx4%2FbWH1-__EmCoJdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=zCuH4RUT5mF8O8%2FuE1Q2LF7ug6XxieKzTY%2FixIPnupo%3Dreserved=0
> >
> > After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
> > indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
> >
> > 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenzipkine%2Fzipkin%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2F.github%2FCONTRIBUTING.md%23licensedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb6688cfbd5c643fd589d08d61dd3a1dd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636729192122171615sdata=KUQH3PeI%2FQvQ2dzs1CYdGZVtSRCS0wOnJaPIYAvbMYs%3Dreserved=0
> > 

> >
> > There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
> > the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
> > since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
> >
> > Hope these details help,
> > -A
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mick,
> > >
> > > tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
> > establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant 
or

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Mark Struberg]

+1 with a minor addendum.

Smallish contributions do not constitute own Intellectual Property Rights if 
they do not pass the bar for the 'threshold of originality'.
Of course this bar is a grey area. But it's afaict established sense that small 
bugfixes, and minor contributions (no whole feature) does not pass this bar.

So in practice you only need the written ACK from people who contributed a more 
impacting feature or enhancement.

Example: Fixing a spelling error or clarifying an existing sententence does now 
constitute originary IP. Adding a whole page of documentation surely does.
And inbetween is a grey area.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 19.09.2018 um 03:09 schrieb Craig Russell :
> 
> Hi Mick,
> 
> tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to 
> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or an 
> ICLA.
> 
> In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every line 
> of code needs to have its provenance researched. 
> 
> Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal it 
> seems like most of the code is in the github repository 
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from another 
> source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin? Is there 
> any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain any rights?
> 
> The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But can 
> we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at 
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
> 
> The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The 
> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in 
> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. " 
> 
> It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of code. Did 
> they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their copyright 
> to The OpenZipkin Authors?
> 
> Craig
> 
>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to ASF 
>> requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris raised 
>> this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the GitHub 
>> repositories moving service`.
>> 
>> I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by the 
>> community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from all 
>> those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to me 
>> that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary. 
>> 
>> What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the question 
>> to the Secretary? 
>> 
>> regards,
>> Mick
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

OpenZipkin isn't a formal entity. The primary fork (master copy) was
moved from twitter to a github org named OpenZipkin. We aren't moving
any downstream forks to the exist they still exist for Lookout or any
other person.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is OpenZipkin a formal entity?
>
> What about Lookout who also had a fork (according to the references)?
>
> At Twitter you might try Remy DeCausemaker.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Adrian Cole  wrote:
> >
> > Hi, John
> >
> > Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
> > would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
> > through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
> > made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
> > find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> >
> > Best,
> > -A
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
> >>
> >> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
> >> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
> >> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
> >> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
> >> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
> >> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
> >>
> >> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
> >> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
> >> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
> >> ready to graduate.
> >>
> >> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
> >> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
> >> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
> >> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
> >> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
> >> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
> >> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
> >> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> [1]: https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
> >>> openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
> >>> the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ
> >>>
> >>> After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
> >>> indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/openzipkine/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
> >>> the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
> >>> since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
> >>>
> >>> Hope these details help,
> >>> -A
> >>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Hi Mick,
> 
>  tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
> >>> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or
> >>> an ICLA.
> 
>  In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every
> >>> line of code needs to have its provenance researched.
> 
>  Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal
> >>> it seems like most of the code is in the github repository
> >>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from
> >>> another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin?
> >>> Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain
> >>> any rights?
> 
>  The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But
> >>> can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at
> >>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
> 
>  The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The
> >>> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in
> >>> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
> 
>  It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of
> >>> code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants 
> >>> their
> >>> copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors?
> 
>  Craig
> 
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Dave Fisher]

Hi,

Is OpenZipkin a formal entity?

What about Lookout who also had a fork (according to the references)?

At Twitter you might try Remy DeCausemaker.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Adrian Cole  wrote:
> 
> Hi, John
> 
> Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
> would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
> through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
> made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
> find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> 
> Best,
> -A
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
>> 
>> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
>> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
>> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
>> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
>> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
>> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
>> 
>> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
>> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
>> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
>> ready to graduate.
>> 
>> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
>> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
>> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
>> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
>> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
>> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
>> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
>> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> [1]: https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors
>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
>>> 
>>> There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
>>> openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
>>> the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ
>>> 
>>> After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
>>> indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/openzipkine/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
>>> the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
>>> since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
>>> 
>>> Hope these details help,
>>> -A
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell 
>>> wrote:
 
 Hi Mick,
 
 tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
>>> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or
>>> an ICLA.
 
 In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every
>>> line of code needs to have its provenance researched.
 
 Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal
>>> it seems like most of the code is in the github repository
>>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from
>>> another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin?
>>> Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain
>>> any rights?
 
 The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But
>>> can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at
>>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
 
 The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The
>>> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in
>>> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
 
 It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of
>>> code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their
>>> copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors?
 
 Craig
 
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> 
> 
> It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to
>>> ASF requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris
>>> raised this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the
>>> GitHub repositories moving service`.
> 
> I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by
>>> the community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from
>>> all those 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

Hi, John

Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.

Best,
-A
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament  wrote:
>
> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
>
> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
>
> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
> ready to graduate.
>
> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:
>
> > There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
> > openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
> > the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ
> >
> > After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
> > indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
> >
> > https://github.com/openzipkine/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license
> > 
> >
> > There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
> > the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
> > since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
> >
> > Hope these details help,
> > -A
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mick,
> > >
> > > tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
> > establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or
> > an ICLA.
> > >
> > > In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every
> > line of code needs to have its provenance researched.
> > >
> > > Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal
> > it seems like most of the code is in the github repository
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from
> > another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin?
> > Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain
> > any rights?
> > >
> > > The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But
> > can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
> > >
> > > The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The
> > OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in
> > Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
> > >
> > > It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of
> > code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their
> > copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors?
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to
> > ASF requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris
> > raised this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the
> > GitHub repositories moving service`.
> > > >
> > > > I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by
> > the community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from
> > all those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to
> > me that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary.
> > > >
> > > > What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the
> > question to the Secretary?
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Mick
> > > 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[John D. Ament]

Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.

Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.

Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
ready to graduate.

With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
process that Adrian has pointed out below.

Thoughts?

John

[1]: https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:

> There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
> openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
> the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ
>
> After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
> indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
>
> https://github.com/openzipkine/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license
> 
>
> There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
> the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
> since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
>
> Hope these details help,
> -A
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mick,
> >
> > tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or
> an ICLA.
> >
> > In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every
> line of code needs to have its provenance researched.
> >
> > Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal
> it seems like most of the code is in the github repository
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from
> another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin?
> Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain
> any rights?
> >
> > The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But
> can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
> >
> > The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The
> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in
> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
> >
> > It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of
> code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their
> copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors?
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to
> ASF requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris
> raised this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the
> GitHub repositories moving service`.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by
> the community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from
> all those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to
> me that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary.
> > >
> > > What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the
> question to the Secretary?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Mick
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> > c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo <
> http://db.apache.org/jdo>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Adrian Cole]

There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/zipkin-user/fbOgEZpuQx4/bWH1-__EmCoJ

After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#license

There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.

Hope these details help,
-A
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell  wrote:
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to 
> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or an 
> ICLA.
>
> In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every line 
> of code needs to have its provenance researched.
>
> Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal it 
> seems like most of the code is in the github repository 
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from another 
> source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin? Is there 
> any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain any rights?
>
> The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But can 
> we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at 
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?
>
> The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The 
> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in 
> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
>
> It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of code. Did 
> they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their copyright 
> to The OpenZipkin Authors?
>
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to ASF 
> > requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris raised 
> > this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the GitHub 
> > repositories moving service`.
> >
> > I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by the 
> > community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from all 
> > those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to me 
> > that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary.
> >
> > What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the 
> > question to the Secretary?
> >
> > regards,
> > Mick
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo 
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

[Craig Russell]

Hi Mick,

tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to establish 
that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or an ICLA.

In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every line 
of code needs to have its provenance researched. 

Looking at the proposal https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZipkinProposal it 
seems like most of the code is in the github repository 
https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin . Is there any code coming from another 
source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin? Is there any 
documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain any rights?

The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But can we 
assume that the only committers to the project are listed at 
https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin/graphs/contributors ?

The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The OpenZipkin 
Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in Initial 
Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. " 

It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of code. Did 
they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their copyright to 
The OpenZipkin Authors?

Craig

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> 
> 
> It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to ASF 
> requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris raised 
> this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the GitHub 
> repositories moving service`.
> 
> I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by the 
> community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from all 
> those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to me 
> that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary. 
> 
> What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the question 
> to the Secretary? 
> 
> regards,
> Mick
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo